Mr. Kuldip Singh, J.: - Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, whereby an application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 was dismissed being timed barred. Also impugned is the order dated 31.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal against the said order was also dismissed.

2. Undisputedly, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of land measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Rattanheri, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, was filed against the present revisionist in the Court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Khanna. It was averred in the said suit that defendant (revisionist herein) had agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff (respondent herein) for Rs. 73,237/-, vide agreement to sell dated 14.6.1990. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.6.1991. It was further claimed that the sale deed was not executed by the defendant/revisionist. It also comes out from the perusal of the lower Court file that the defendant/revisionist in the said suit is stated to have been served through registered AD letter, but he did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte on 18.4.1995. Accordingly, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 7.2.1996. The present revisionist, who was defendant in the said suit, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, for setting aside the said ex-parte judgment and decree. Alongwith the said application, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed on 27.5.1997, which was dismissed.

3. It also comes out that the lower Court had framed the following issues for disposal of the main application filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC :-

“1. Whether the order dated 7.2.96 is liable to be set aside ? OPP

2. Whether the application is not maintainable ? OPR

3. Whether the application is time barred ? OPR

4. Relief.”

4. The application filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed, vide order dated 27.8.2003 by the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge (A), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, vide order dated 11.9.2004, set aside the said order and directed the trial Court to first decide the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter depending upon the decision of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC afresh. It was in this way, the said application was decided.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file and lower Court file as well.

6. The lower Court, while dismissing the application, made the following observations :-

“7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the file. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for condonation of delay for filing application. Article 123 of the Limitation Act provides for period of limitation of 30 days for an application for getting set aside ex-parte judgment and decree. The relevant time for start of limitation is from the date of knowledge. But in the present case the application was filed on 27.5.1997 but applicant had already appeared in the execution of decree dated 10.2.1997. There is delay of 105 days. The applicant has to show sufficient cause of delay of each day. The applicant has taken the plea that after appearing on 10.12.1997, he consulted his counsel and his counsel advised him to get the certified copies of the judgment and decree and he applied for the same on 3.3.2007 and get the certified copy of the same on 24.5.2009. Therefor